This story has some very troubling aspects, and a quick survey of various discussions about it and related matters shows just how deep the trouble goes.
The highest-level case in American history involving the right to circumcision is slated to be heard this fall, when the Oregon Supreme Court rules on whether a father can have his 12-year-old son undergo the procedure.
The case — which could affect the ability of parents to make religiously motivated decisions for their children — is bound up with a bitter custody dispute between a divorced Oregon couple. It pits James Boldt, the custodial parent and a recent convert to Judaism, against Lia Boldt, who argues that the boy is afraid to tell her ex-husband that he does not want to be circumcised. She says that the boy would be physically and psychologically harmed by the procedure.
My first instinct reading this was to side with the father. But wait a minute. There are a few facts missing here. The marriage dissolved in 1999, when the boy was four. The father converted to Judaism a few years later. The mother did not. The father now wants to convert his child to Judaism. The mother's position on that, in itself, is unclear, and apparently not at issue here. But the courts are all over the place on the basic question of whether and under what circumstances a divorced parent, custodial or non-custodial, has the right to convert his or her child against the wishes of the other parent. Understandably. So take the continuation of the Forward article with a small grain of salt.
The acceptance of the case by Oregon’s highest court is surprising, because judges generally grant a wide degree of latitude to custodial parents — so much so, in fact, that the state’s Court of Appeals rejected the mother’s case without issuing an opinion. If the Oregon Supreme Court decides to review the merits of the father’s plan for circumcision, it will almost inevitably weigh in on two related issues: the right of custodial parents to guide their children’s religious upbringings, and the weight that religious considerations should be given when considering the welfare of a child.“Are parents only authorized to make decisions that a secular decision-maker would make?†asked Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, which is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of James Boldt. “We have to win this case, and win it big, in my view†Stern said.
“Our position is that the custodial parent can take into account religious interests in determining what’s in the interest of the child,†Stern added.
The AJC is coming down hard on the side of the father. The ADL, on the other hand, is (wisely, I think) staying out of this. What if we were talking about female genital mutilation here rather than male circumcision? I realize that FGM is not, in fact, mandated by any major religion, but some people continue to believe that it is. At least we're clear on the difference there.
Right?
Apparently not. As I browsed around looking to see how and whether this story was being addressed on the blogs, I came across some very disturbing chatter. A virtual epidemic of ignorance, in fact. The comments here are predictable. I'd like to assume that the latent antisemitism implicit in many of them is inadvertent. But then I came across this thread at what purports to be a Reform Judaism "help desk." A 17-year boy from Mexico wants to convert to Judaism but is scared to death of even the thought of circumcision. Can he convert without it? One commenter who holds himself out as a bit of an expert replies:
You don't have to wack off part of your business to be a Jew. YOU DON'T! Being a Jew is much more than circumcision. Circumcision isn't required anyway. It's more of a tradition. So's getting bar-mitzved at 13. I didn't get bar-mitzved, and I'm still a Jew. And, a bar-mitzvah is a much bigger event in a Jews life than circumcision.
Well, it's true that "getting bar-mitzved" is a tradition, not a requirement, although there's really no such thing as "getting bar-mitzved." (A Jewish boy becomes a bar mitzvah on his 13th birthday, with or without a ceremony, a party or gifts. The ceremony itself is a tradition and a relatively recent one. It's not required, and has nothing to do with whether or not a man is considered a Jew.) On every other count, "excon" (nice) is just plain wrong.
The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.
And what, exactly, does Genesis 17:10-24 say about this "tradition?"
Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And throughout the generations, every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days. As for the homeborn slave and the one bought from an outsider who is not of your offspring, they must be circumcised, homeborn, and purchased alike. Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken My covenant."
I understand that it's becoming very PC these days to be revolted by the idea of circumcision and that lots of hip young Jewish parents are electing forego the nasty deed and allow their boys to grow up "whole." The stories here are enough to make me despair about the future of the non-Orthodox Jewish community.
Though Rachel decided against a bris without the influence of statistics or the recommendations of medical organizations, she had no idea if her husband would agree with her.
"I left the decision up to him," Rachel says. "It was difficult for me, but he appreciated it."
Rachel's husband never told her what his decision was. It became clear to Rachel only after he phoned his mother to announce the boy's birth.
"I knew the question was coming, right after my husband told her it was a boy," Rachel says.
It was a question that's been asked by Jewish grandmothers for 2,800 years: When's the bris?
There wouldn't be a bris, Rachel's husband told his mother. And when his mother asked him why, Rachel's husband answered, "It's not for us."
"I'm delighted," Rachel says. "I always go back to the idea that in this generation, a loving father can make a decision he wasn't allowed to make for himself."
A decision to cut his son off from his people, to ensure his rejection by most of the Jewish community, or to have to undergo the procedure in adulthood. Such a loving father. "It's not for us." Such an informed, enlightened attitude.
So, with all due respect to the AJC, I think we have more pressing issues to worry about than whether the courts allow James Boldt to circumcise his 12-year-old son against the wishes of his non-Jewish ex-wife. But neither is the outcome of that case lacking implications that could have an impact on those issues. Let's pay attention.
